Burzynski – A Balancing Counterpoint

I get a lot of posts from who knows who trying to restate what I’ve said about Dr Burzynski and his antineoplaston treatments.

I have no idea what their agenda is, or for whom they’re posting. But, I leave the posts on the site because this site is dedicated to providing balanced information to people.

From time-to-time I also provide links to people’s work that I feel is relevant.

The Doctor whose blog I provide a link to below is one whose work I frequently read and respect. Even if I don’t agree with his dedication to the ‘goodness’ of our current system.

But I think the post at this web address clearly defines the counterpoint to Dr Burzynski’s claims.

So, I post it here as a counterpoint for those who are considering Dr Burzynski.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelMedicineHealth+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Medicine+%26+Health%29

My respect for this physician’s works and point of view does not in any way change my position and observations about Burzynski’s treatments.

And I remind you that this site is not dedicated to hyping Dr Burzynski’s treatments, instead having posted upon it many other therapies that I believe have merit.

 

5 thoughts on “Burzynski – A Balancing Counterpoint

  1. “My respect for this physician’s works and point of view does not in any way change my position and observations about Burzynski’s treatments.”

    No, I suspect you wouldn’t pay attention to contrary reports or red flags about this guy, even when it’s from a source you trust. Not now, after you’ve disseminated so much good press for him. It would mean you’d have to admit you were wrong, and that your patented reading list is not useful ‘intellectual property’.

    “And I remind you that this site is not dedicated to hyping Dr Burzynski’s treatments…”

    Could have fooled me! Who would think that the subject of your blog is NOT that of 9 out of your last 11 posts!?!?

    1. Michael, I suspect that you’re more sophisticated than this post indicates.

      You know that intellectual property is not patented property. Instead, it is data and/or information that an organization or company feels is critical to the research path they have taken in pursuit of an end product.. which might ultimately be a patentable idea or a trade secret, etc..

      There is nothing secret about Burzynski’s publications and writings, nor the things that have been written about him and his research.

      But embedded in those writings – and you will note that I included writings about his research and observed effects – is an idea string that we are researching. It may bear fruit, or be a dead end. Time will tell.

      In fact, I’ll toss you a bone.. There is mention of one of the critical ideas in the posting you commented on yesterday. Surely, with your extensive knowledge base you will pounce on it immediately.

      If you have the background, education and intellect and are willing to really think about the implications of Dr Burzynski’s theories and treatment effects versus other non-mainstream treatments that have shown some efficacy you should be able to google your way to seeing where my interest lies.

      If not, well… it doesn’t matter, does it.

      As far as redeeming Burzynski, that is not my job.

      You don’t like it that I voice my opinion and it doesn’t agree with yours, But I leave your postings here for all to read so that they can get a more balanced review of Burzynski’s treatments.

      And you will note that many of my posts about Burzynski are repostings of information that is not favorable to him and/or his clinic.

      You will not find that anywhere else in the world.

      I think it is important that the information and beliefs from both sides be available to people who are searching for answers.

    1. Orac wasn’t attacking Pauling’s total body of work but characterized his specific claims regarding the beneficial effects of mega-doses of vitamin C as qauckery, for the simple reason that there’s no evidence indicating those claims are accurate.

    2. Would it surprise you if the Null DVD was onlnie? Maybe it’s different to the one AVN sell for $20. I also found one at Google Video.Err, are they charging $20 for free CCHR video? Or are they different?Is that $25 One Answer to Cancer DVD the same one the makers sell for AUD10 on their website?Surely the 95 minute Making a Killing video on cannot be the same one the AVN sell for $25I must be doing something wrong. I’ll stop looking now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>